Paid-for advertising includes paid blogging - FTC Weighs In
New York Times published yesterday in Media and Advertising an article titled Notice Those Ads on Blogs? Regulators Do, Too
National Advertising Review Council’s investigative units have completed recommendations concerning blogs and advertising. "Paid-for advertising includes paid blogging, the programs’ recommendations make clear."
"The F.T.C. is close to updating its guidelines on endorsements and testimonials for the first time since 1980. Its proposed guidelines go further than the self-regulatory bodies have, saying that bloggers must disclose not only when they are paid by a company, but also when they receive a free product."
It has been obvious for quite some time that "the industry" of blogging has failed at self regulation. As is usually the case in failures of this sort, particularly where numerous consumer complaints are received -- especially high profile ones -- and obvious conflicts of interest are perceived, governmental regulation steps in to bridge the gap. That time is now.
Bloggers (and micro-bloggers) take note.
- threew's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
It has been obvious for
It has been obvious for quite some time that 'the industry' of blogging has failed at self regulation.
Point/Counter-point: Do you think the use of blogs is different than the one-way advertisements seen in newspapers and TV? Can users' interactions with the blog article's author cause people en masse to discern what is truth versus pure marketing?
For example, 20 years ago when an product was purchased, there was little recourse available to the purchaser if it didn't work as intended (besides returning the product)...except for limited word-of-mouth. Now, word-of-mouth has a wide reach, with even the possibility of getting propelled into larger crowds through viral phenomena. If a product is crappy, it doesn't take long for many people to learn about it, and the information is available quickly and forevermore thanks to Google.
So, the question is: does "social media" (I'm beginning to despise that term) act as the regulator in this scenario, analogous to articles appearing in peer-reviewed journals being considered more rigorously validated?
Despite the fact that word
Despite the fact that word of mouth has attained almost universal reach, there are practices requiring regulation. ...seven electronics retailers that in addition to illegal practices, “obtained fake ‘consumer testimonials’ through Web sites that claim to be impartial consumer-based ‘rating’ Web sites” but were not. is a case in point.
In this scenario would an activity considered illegal if perpetrated off the web (one-way) be seen any less illegal when committed on the web interactively simply because people can respond to it, Tweet or blog about it, or take it viral?
In my opinion, no. Authorities might, or might not, hear about it quicker than if the deceptions were perpetrated in print, for example, but that is hardly "self regulating."
In another case mentioned, a company producing nutritional supplements ran multiple web sites “formatted as independent product-review blogs.” The company paid bloggers to write reviews (without disclosure) and promoted "Consumer Choice Awards" where their products were the permanent awardees and no "consumers" were involved in the "choice."
The interactive nature of the web is no protection in cases like this. Isn't fraud and deception (and astroturfing) something we want regulated?
On the other hand companies provide bloggers (and other non-web reviewers) samples of their products or services all the time as common practice. In these cases, there is no direct control by the company over what the reviewer publishes although it is imminently arguable whether or not the free sample injects bias. However, there is no reason to single out the blogging community for disclosure or other regulatory provisions that do not apply to non-web reviewers.
If movie critics get in free to see a show, are we consumers likely to think their review is somehow slanted?
No, probably not. Movie critics do not have to disclose this kind of information and therefore bloggers should not either. However, both probably should.
The critic may have reviewed that particular show because it was free and ignored others that were not. Their review is publicity and if publicity is given only to those who provide free samples and not to those who don't, that is bias. Ditto for other product and service reviews... bloggers, TV, print, radio, whatever.
I don't think we who are consumers and interactive denizens of the web community are capable of providing the same rigor as peer-reviewed journals. At least not without more transparency in the system.
Avoiding further use of the "despised" term ;~)
William W. (Woody) Williams
Project Management Consultant
| Blog | Twitter |
w3src Consulting